Why Catholicism isn't Christianity...

[eternally-gratefull]

I was using the Protestant approach of Scripture interpreting Scripture, one which I thought you would be familiar with.

As for Acts 10, In context it seems that the HS is what made them hear Peters preaching (the HS "falling upon" them) and therefore made them believe. This doesn't seem to be a case of a person having the HS "come into them" as you understand it. Rather it seems the HS was convicting people in this passage.

No, From what I saw it was the catholic reasoning for doing things. You respond to a post on one passage (john 3) with another passage which has nothing to do with the first.

The problem with your interpretation of Acts 10 is that they were speaking in tongues. Which proves the HS had come in them. After the true baptism which does save us. The baptism of the spirit. This verse proves spirit baptism happens before water baptism. Not at the same time as some people claim. Scripture states there is one baptism. It is not water. It is the HS baptism which saved. Romans 6 and 1 cor 12 and titus 3 5 tells us what this baptism is. Acts 10 shows it happening before water baptism.

Now. Are we going to get back to john 3 or completely ignore it?

 

[R3V07UTI0N]

No, From what I saw it was the catholic reasoning for doing things. You respond to a post on one passage (john 3) with another passage which has nothing to do with the first.

The problem with your interpretation of Acts 10 is that they were speaking in tongues. Which proves the HS had come in them. After the true baptism which does save us. The baptism of the spirit. This verse proves spirit baptism happens before water baptism. Not at the same time as some people claim. Scripture states there is one baptism. It is not water. It is the HS baptism which saved. Romans 6 and 1 cor 12 and titus 3 5 tells us what this baptism is. Acts 10 shows it happening before water baptism.

Now. Are we going to get back to john 3 or completely ignore it?

This goes with John 3
To be born of water...is to be baptized in water
To be born of spirit....is to be baptized with the Holy Spirit
To enter the kingdom of God

 

[SantoSubito]

No, From what I saw it was the catholic reasoning for doing things. You respond to a post on one passage (john 3) with another passage which has nothing to do with the first.

Um actually that whole method is the basis for the Thompson Chain reference Bible. Basically you use other passages to shed light on others. That being said it is a very protestant method of interpretation.

The problem with your interpretation of Acts 10 is that they were speaking in tongues. Which proves the HS had come in them.

Not exactly the Gentiles speaking in tongues were convicting the Jews who heard them.

After the true baptism which does save us. The baptism of the spirit. This verse proves spirit baptism happens before water baptism. Not at the same time as some people claim. Scripture states there is one baptism. It is not water. It is the HS baptism which saved. Romans 6 and 1 cor 12 and titus 3 5 tells us what this baptism is. Acts 10 shows it happening before water baptism.

I wouldn't say that. When we interpret Acts 10 in light of Acts 2:38: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Here the gift of the Holy Spirit comes last in the list so the most reasonable interpretation of Acts 10 is that the HS was convicting the Gentiles through Peter and the Jews through the Gentiles. Which makes the passage mesh with Acts 2.

Now. Are we going to get back to john 3 or completely ignore it?

If you ask me we were never really off it. We said John 3 said one thing and you said it meant the opposite, so we had reached an impasse.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Um actually that whole method is the basis for the Thompson Chain reference Bible. Basically you use other passages to shed light on others. That being said it is a very protestant method of interpretation.

well thats your problem. and why you should not group a bunch of people under one name because not everyone is that way. I made my comment about the way catholics do things by experience. experience is alot more informative about why people do things than some chain reference which I do not even use or know.

Not exactly the Gentiles speaking in tongues were convicting the Jews who heard them.

what? did you get this from thomson chain reference too? The HS could not give any gifts unless he had entered them. The fact they were doing these things that happened on pentecost is because they were saved.

I wouldn't say that. When we interpret Acts 10 in light of Acts 2:38: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Here the gift of the Holy Spirit comes last in the list so the most reasonable interpretation of Acts 10 is that the HS was convicting the Gentiles through Peter and the Jews through the Gentiles. Which makes the passage mesh with Acts 2.

the problem with this is your using an english translation which is poorly translated. Peter told Everyone (2nd person Plural) to repent, and said they would recieve the gift if they did. Then he told those who did this (3rd person singular) to be baptized. The fact he deid not tell everyone to be baptized proves that he was not mixing repentance and baptism in one lump grouping as essential to receiving remission of sin. It is like in John 3. When jesus failed to mention baptism at all. and people just ASSume he meant it because he said water.

If you ask me we were never really off it. We said John 3 said one thing and you said it meant the opposite, so we had reached an impasse.

Oh I see. I showed why id did not say something. and you just leave it at that and don't show me how I was wrong.

wow!!

I am glad your not my co-worker who would leave me in danger of doing something in error just because you don't agree with me and would not explain why I was so wrong. I least I explained to you why I could not agree with in in the text itself. All you did was go off on some wild tangent, then said it was the protestant way of doing things

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This goes with John 3
To be born of water...is to be baptized in water
To be born of spirit....is to be baptized with the Holy Spirit
To enter the kingdom of God

As I said when I did my response to john 3. I do not see baptism in jhohn 3.

To be born of water..is to be born of flesh (physical birth)
to be born of spirit. is to be reborn spiritually (born again)
to recieve what Jesus said in John 3: 16. For God so loved the world he gave his only son, that whosoever BELIEVES in him will HAVE ETERNAL LIFE (born again to eternal life)

Sorry. I can not add to the words of God things which are not there. The Fact Jesus did not tell Nicodemus he needed to be baptizes as well as believe (which takes repentance) speaks volumes. If jesus wanted him, or us, to believe water meant baptism, he would told us so.

"For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him AND IS BAPTIZED will have eternal life.

I do not see the above in any translation of scripture.

 

[kujo313]

The Holy Spirit can do whatever He wants.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The Holy Spirit can do whatever He wants.

Not according to Christ. The HS does what the father tells him to do. Like jesus he does nothing on his own.
Scripture said he is sent by the father through the son. so he does not even come of his own accord. He comes when the father tells him to.

 

[SantoSubito]

well thats your problem. and why you should not group a bunch of people under one name because not everyone is that way. I made my comment about the way catholics do things by experience. experience is alot more informative about why people do things than some chain reference which I do not even use or know.

I've yet to hear a protestant sermon where the pastor didn't do exactly what I did, which is use one passage to shed light on others.

what? did you get this from thomson chain reference too? The HS could not give any gifts unless he had entered them. The fact they were doing these things that happened on pentecost is because they were saved.

I don't use the Chain reference that often, but all it does is cross reference related verses it doesn't have any actual commentary. But I would be careful in using passages in Acts to assert that the HS came before they were baptized, because in Acts 8:14-17 "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

Here they had believed and been baptized but not received the HS, which doesn't mesh with either of our theologies. Acts is full of "exceptions" like this that God used to build up the Early Church.

the problem with this is your using an english translation which is poorly translated. Peter told Everyone (2nd person Plural) to repent, and said they would recieve the gift if they did. Then he told those who did this (3rd person singular) to be baptized.

I used the KJV for that passage. Indeed he told everyone to repent and be baptized and only those who repented were baptized. But Peter said "Repent, and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the HS" If Peter meant what you said the way he ordered his speech would have been "Repent, and ye shall receive the gift of the HS, and be baptized". The fact that he didn't speaks volumes.

Peter is also parrelling the order God used in Ezk 36:25-28
"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

This verse is the prefigurement of NT baptism. First God will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us, then he will put his spirit within us. Just like Peter says

When you look at a list of events you don't assume that the first happened, then the third, then the second. Which is exactly what your proposing happened here.

The fact he deid not tell everyone to be baptized proves that he was not mixing repentance and baptism in one lump grouping as essential to receiving remission of sin. It is like in John 3. When jesus failed to mention baptism at all. and people just ASSume he meant it because he said water

.

Well it's a good assumption and it's the plain meaning, but you also have to ASSume he didn't mean water.

Oh I see. I showed why id did not say something. and you just leave it at that and don't show me how I was wrong.

wow!!

I am glad your not my co-worker who would leave me in danger of doing something in error just because you don't agree with me and would not explain why I was so wrong. I least I explained to you why I could not agree with in in the text itself. All you did was go off on some wild tangent, then said it was the protestant way of doing things

I wouldn't compare co-workers to religion the two are vastly different. The point is we interpret many verses you say prove symbolic only baptism as proving baptismal regeneration, like Titus 3:5. So the only way to proceed from there is to use other verses in scripture.

 

[kujo313]

Not according to Christ. The HS does what the father tells him to do. Like jesus he does nothing on his own.
Scripture said he is sent by the father through the son. so he does not even come of his own accord. He comes when the father tells him to.

I stand corrected. Some are baptized in the Holy Spirit before water baptism. Others, the other way around. God's way is not our way so get out of the way.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I've yet to hear a protestant sermon where the pastor didn't do exactly what I did, which is use one passage to shed light on others.

well I don't know what protestant churches you have been to (yes I have seen this too) But no church I go to does this.

It is one thing to do as I did with John 3 (explain it in detail, in context, and in what was said as a whole. not as a part) and maybe use other passages to show the fulfillment of what is being said. (which most of the churches I have attended do, including my present church)

it is another to do as you are doing, and MANY MANY other churches do. And give an opinion on said passage (water in john 3 is baptism) with no explanation of why or in depth study of all of john 3 to see what is really being said. And just pick other verses to prove their point (as you are doing, which you say is a protestant thing) which was not intended by God to do when he gave us his word.

I don't use the Chain reference that often, but all it does is cross reference related verses it doesn't have any actual commentary.

I have seen and used them to. My bible even has cross references. However I have found many of the so called cross references do not actually reference what it says it is referencing. So I do not find them of much help now. Plus they are just mans opinion. Whatever the person believes is what the person will reference. so they are biased opinions which should not be held as gospel truth.

But I would be careful in using passages in Acts to assert that the HS came before they were baptized, because in Acts 8:14-17 "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Here they had believed and been baptized but not received the HS, which doesn't mesh with either of our theologies. Acts is full of "exceptions" like this that God used to build up the Early Church.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with being careful. it is realizing God was starting something new. Something the world had never seen before. And he did things differently depending on who he was trying to convince that this gospel came from him and was not a lie, and as you said, used exceptions to build up the church.

what is important is understanding what God says as a whole on the subject. and in doing so we can stop making mistakes like.

1. Saying baptism of man in water and HS baptism is one and the same. Scripture states there is only one baptism which is important. Not two.
2. Saying water baptism is not a work. Circumcision was an OT tradition which symbolized a person was cleansed. Yet the one being circumcised did not do any work. the work was done to him by man. It is a work because it is a work of man, Not of God, even though God commanded that men be circumcised. Paul makes it clear in col that circumcision done by men avails nothing. It is the circumcision done by the hands of God which makes us clean. And he tells us how this "cleaning" by the hand of God was performed.

col 2: 11 - 12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body 8of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Our baptism is the work of God. he baptizes us, and he raises us. it is his work which washes us and makes us spiritually circumcised. It is not the work of some man cutting us., or baptizing us in water.

3. Using another passage to support our theory. when context of the passage does nto allow it to be used. thus interpreting scripture to match our belief. and not match what God is trying t tell us. As in John 3 and using those verse to attempt to prove water in john 3 means baptize. when baptism is not even a part of what is being said in john 3. or even referred to.

I used the KJV for that passage. Indeed he told everyone to repent and be baptized and only those who repented were baptized. But Peter said "Repent, and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the HS" If Peter meant what you said the way he ordered his speech would have been "Repent, and ye shall receive the gift of the HS, and be baptized". The fact that he didn't speaks volumes.

I used the greek. The KJV is just a mans translation, and thus is subject to error.

repent is second person plural. He spoke to everyone.

Baptize is third person singular. He was only speaking to some of them (individually). If Peter wanted everyone to "repent and be baptized" he would have used second person plural for both verbs. The fact he did not speaks volumes.

To see who he was speaking individually and telling to be baptized. we must find out who they are. who are the subject. (spoken to) what is the verb (command) and what is the object.

repent is the command given to all (2nd person plural) . All is the subject (he spoke to everyone) Gift of the HS is the object of the command to repent (second person plural.)

Let every one of you (3rd singular) is the subject of the individual command. Be baptized (3rd singular) is the command, and remission of sin (3rd singular) is the object. Unto is the modifying phrase.

so where do we go. Is remission of sin because of baptism or is baptism done because of remission of sin received?

Unto does not always mean in order to receive. it can also mean because of.

since one can not have the gift of the spirit until remission is accomplished. Remission had to happen before baptism in water was done. Because the gift was due to repentance. before they were even baptized.

Peter is also parrelling the order God used in Ezk 36:25-28
"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

Yeah I agree. GOD will sprinkle clean water on us and make us clean. No where in ezekial does it say that God will have anothe rman sprinkle wayer on us. It says God will be the one doing the cleansing. So why are we trying to make baptism done by the hands of men replace baptism doen by the hands of God?

This verse is the prefigurement of NT baptism. First God will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us, then he will put his spirit within us. Just like Peter says

Well peter did not say this. The greek does not allow it. And the rest is an opinion. Again God did not say man would sproinkle us. He said he personally would. No baptism by the hands of men will make us clean spiritually. It will get us wet. that is all. The baptism done by God (HS Baptism) will make us spiritual clean. Whiter than snow.

When you look at a list of events you don't assume that the first happened, then the third, then the second. Which is exactly what your proposing happened here.

No I am looking at language and using normal language skills which are applicable to all languages.

I do not say all of you sign this paper. and some of you take an oath and I will give you this nice paying job.

I say all of you sign this paper.and I will give you this job. And those of you who do, take an oath because you have received this job.

.Well it's a good assumption and it's the plain meaning, but you also have to ASSume he didn't mean water.

No. It does not mean I have to assum this at all. He did not tell everyone to be baptized. So whether it is baptism in water or HS does not matter.

I wouldn't compare co-workers to religion the two are vastly different. The point is we interpret many verses you say prove symbolic only baptism as proving baptismal regeneration, like Titus 3:5. So the only way to proceed from there is to use other verses in scripture.

God used simple terms we can understand to explain his truth all the time. I just did that to explain what I believed. Nothing wrong with this.

Titus 3 5 tells us how we are cleansed. And how we are born again (regeneration means made alive, quickened, or born again) so it perfectly fits. And titus 3 5 tells us it is the HS which does the owrk. Not some man getting us wet.

 

[R3V07UTI0N]

As I said when I did my response to john 3. I do not see baptism in jhohn 3.

To be born of water..is to be born of flesh (physical birth)
to be born of spirit. is to be reborn spiritually (born again)
to recieve what Jesus said in John 3: 16. For God so loved the world he gave his only son, that whosoever BELIEVES in him will HAVE ETERNAL LIFE (born again to eternal life)

Sorry. I can not add to the words of God things which are not there. The Fact Jesus did not tell Nicodemus he needed to be baptizes as well as believe (which takes repentance) speaks volumes. If jesus wanted him, or us, to believe water meant baptism, he would told us so.

"For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him AND IS BAPTIZED will have eternal life.

I do not see the above in any translation of scripture.

Ok well what do you think about
When Jesus ordered to baptize in the name(singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)
And how did they baptize? (Act 2:38) "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." and many more verses where they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Ok well what do you think about
When Jesus ordered to baptize in the name(singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)
And how did they baptize? (Act 2:38) "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." and many more verses where they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I said above. and I requote myself.


repent is second person plural. He spoke to everyone.

Baptize is third person singular. He was only speaking to some of them (individually). If Peter wanted everyone to "repent and be baptized" he would have used second person plural for both verbs. The fact he did not speaks volumes.

To see who he was speaking individually and telling to be baptized. we must find out who they are. who are the subject. (spoken to) what is the verb (command) and what is the object.

repent is the command given to all (2nd person plural) . All is the subject (he spoke to everyone) Gift of the HS is the object of the command to repent (second person plural.)

Let every one of you (3rd singular) is the subject of the individual command. Be baptized (3rd singular) is the command, and remission of sin (3rd singular) is the object. Unto is the modifying phrase.

so where do we go. Is remission of sin because of baptism or is baptism done because of remission of sin received?

Unto does not always mean in order to receive. it can also mean because of.

since one can not have the gift of the spirit until remission is accomplished. Remission had to happen before baptism in water was done. Because the gift was due to repentance. before they were even baptized.

As for what baptism in who's name. If water baptism was essential for salvation. We would be forced to do it as Jesus commanded in matt 28. or any baptism would be null and void. Yet as you correctly said. many were baptized in the name of Jesus only. Since it is not required for salvation. It does not matter if we baptize 100 % like Jesus said. because it is not the baptism that saves us. It is what it represents that saves us (HS baptism)

Water baptism can not replace HS baptism. We are baptized by God not man to be cleansed.

 

[R3V07UTI0N]

I never said it water baptism replaces the Holy Spirit. I mean we need both to be saved

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I never said it water baptism replaces the Holy Spirit. I mean we need both to be saved

God said we need one. There is One Lord. One faith. One baptism. Not two or three. One.

which one are you going to place your faith in.

HS baptism performed by God?

or water baptism performed by men?

 

[SantoSubito]

I have seen and used them to. My bible even has cross references. However I have found many of the so called cross references do not actually reference what it says it is referencing. So I do not find them of much help now. Plus they are just mans opinion. Whatever the person believes is what the person will reference. so they are biased opinions which should not be held as gospel truth.

Honestly the Chain reference Bible was compiled by a man that was on the complete opposite theological spectrum as me so I wouldn't expect it to support Catholic doctrine

1. Saying baptism of man in water and HS baptism is one and the same. Scripture states there is only one baptism which is important. Not two.
2. Saying water baptism is not a work. Circumcision was an OT tradition which symbolized a person was cleansed. Yet the one being circumcised did not do any work. the work was done to him by man. It is a work because it is a work of man, Not of God, even though God commanded that men be circumcised. Paul makes it clear in col that circumcision done by men avails nothing. It is the circumcision done by the hands of God which makes us clean. And he tells us how this "cleaning" by the hand of God was performed.

When you have a sacramental understanding of scripture and theology it's much different. To us Baptism is a work of God that he does through a man. That is the real issue here, I approach the scriptures with a sacramental view and you approach them with a non-sacramental view. So were bound to interpret them differently

Our baptism is the work of God. he baptizes us, and he raises us. it is his work which washes us and makes us spiritually circumcised. It is not the work of some man cutting us., or baptizing us in water.

Once again to us it is God that is doing the baptizing through the minister.

I used the greek. The KJV is just a mans translation, and thus is subject to error.

repent is second person plural. He spoke to everyone.

Baptize is third person singular. He was only speaking to some of them (individually). If Peter wanted everyone to "repent and be baptized" he would have used second person plural for both verbs. The fact he did not speaks volumes.

To see who he was speaking individually and telling to be baptized. we must find out who they are. who are the subject. (spoken to) what is the verb (command) and what is the object.

repent is the command given to all (2nd person plural) . All is the subject (he spoke to everyone) Gift of the HS is the object of the command to repent (second person plural.)

Let every one of you (3rd singular) is the subject of the individual command. Be baptized (3rd singular) is the command, and remission of sin (3rd singular) is the object. Unto is the modifying phrase.

so where do we go. Is remission of sin because of baptism or is baptism done because of remission of sin received?

Unto does not always mean in order to receive. it can also mean because of.

since one can not have the gift of the spirit until remission is accomplished. Remission had to happen before baptism in water was done. Because the gift was due to repentance. before they were even baptized.

Apart from the last part thats pretty much what I said. Peter told all to repent, he told those who repented to be baptized, and then the would receive the HS. What is meant when Peter says "unto" is where we disagree.

Yeah I agree. GOD will sprinkle clean water on us and make us clean. No where in ezekial does it say that God will have anothe rman sprinkle wayer on us. It says God will be the one doing the cleansing. So why are we trying to make baptism done by the hands of men replace baptism doen by the hands of God?

Same as above. We believe God IS baptizing us.

Well peter did not say this. The greek does not allow it. And the rest is an opinion. Again God did not say man would sproinkle us. He said he personally would. No baptism by the hands of men will make us clean spiritually. It will get us wet. that is all. The baptism done by God (HS Baptism) will make us spiritual clean. Whiter than snow.

Same as above.

God used simple terms we can understand to explain his truth all the time. I just did that to explain what I believed. Nothing wrong with this.

Titus 3 5 tells us how we are cleansed. And how we are born again (regeneration means made alive, quickened, or born again) so it perfectly fits. And titus 3 5 tells us it is the HS which does the owrk. Not some man getting us wet.

We interpret the "washing of regeneration" as baptism, and once again it is God doing the work when we are baptized.

Basically it comes down to a sacramental or non-sacramental way of looking at the scriptures.

 

[R3V07UTI0N]

God said we need one. There is One Lord. One faith. One baptism. Not two or three. One.

which one are you going to place your faith in.

HS baptism performed by God?

or water baptism performed by men?

I place both I follow.

John 3:5 and Matthew 28:19 by doing what Acts 2:38 says

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I place both I follow.

John 3:5 and Matthew 28:19 by doing what Acts 2:38 says

Well John 3:5 says nothing about Baptism. It is about physical birth in the flesh (that which is flesh(water) is flesh) and a new birth in the spirit (That which is spirit is spirit)

Matt 28" 19 is talking about baptizing disciples. They have already been saved.

And we have already been over acts 28. Baptism is because of repentnace and already recieved remission of sin.

not to mention. Again God said one. So two is not going to make you a super christian or more saved. Only one will save you. And I think we both know which one that is.

 

[R3V07UTI0N]

Ok well you go into detail on Acts 2:38?
And where does John 3:5 say born of flesh?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Honestly the Chain reference Bible was compiled by a man that was on the complete opposite theological spectrum as me so I wouldn't expect it to support Catholic doctrine

It does not mean it supports mine either

When you have a sacramental understanding of scripture and theology it's much different. To us Baptism is a work of God that he does through a man. That is the real issue here, I approach the scriptures with a sacramental view and you approach them with a non-sacramental view. So were bound to interpret them differently

The OT had a man circumcise a child (or a gentile as an adult) and this represented God. It was not a work of God it was a work of man. Paul makes it clear in colossians 2 the circumcision of man avails nothing. It is our circumcision of God performed through baptism through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead.

So a baptism by God who is nto Christ. This would be Holy Spirit baptism. Not a baptism by man.

Circumcision was the OT sign of the covenant. Baptism in water is the NT sign. They both represent cleansing The both represent a work of God. The true baptism which saves us.

Once again to us it is God that is doing the baptizing through the minister.

God does not need a man to baptize us in his death, his burial his ressurection or his body. He is capable of doing it itself. In fact Gods warns us about attributing the work of the HS to someone else. He calls it blasphemy. This is a serious subject. I do not take this lightly. I pray you would not either.

Apart from the last part thats pretty much what I said. Peter told all to repent, he told those who repented to be baptized, and then the would receive the HS. What is meant when Peter says "unto" is where we disagree.

No he did not say be baptized and then you would recieve the gift of the spirit. Baptism and Gift of the spirit have different language variables. Gift is 2nd plural. Baptism is third singular. They can not be connected together. No language will allow it. 2nd person nouns do not go with 3rd person verbs. Never has, never wil

As for unto. I already explained it.

Same as above. We believe God IS baptizing us.

Believing and doing are not the same. God is not your priest. [

We interpret the "washing of regeneration" as baptism, and once again it is God doing the work when we are baptized.

It says by the HS. Not by a priest. Your adding to the word of God

Basically it comes down to a sacramental or non-sacramental way of looking at the scriptures.

Thanks but I will take literal approach. Not a works based approach. A sacrament is a work one does to earn salvation. You can call it a work of God all you want. A work is a work is a work. If man is doing it. it is not of God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Ok well you go into detail on Acts 2:38?

I did like 4 posts ago. but here goes again.

I used the greek. The KJV is just a mans translation, and thus is subject to error.

repent is second person plural. He spoke to everyone.

Baptize is third person singular. He was only speaking to some of them (individually). If Peter wanted everyone to "repent and be baptized" he would have used second person plural for both verbs. The fact he did not speaks volumes.

To see who he was speaking individually and telling to be baptized. we must find out who they are. who are the subject. (spoken to) what is the verb (command) and what is the object.

repent is the command given to all (2nd person plural) . All is the subject (he spoke to everyone) Gift of the HS is the object of the command to repent (second person plural.)

Let every one of you (3rd singular) is the subject of the individual command. Be baptized (3rd singular) is the command, and remission of sin (3rd singular) is the object. Unto is the modifying phrase.

so where do we go. Is remission of sin because of baptism or is baptism done because of remission of sin received?

Unto does not always mean in order to receive. it can also mean because of.

since one can not have the gift of the spirit until remission is accomplished. Remission had to happen before baptism in water was done. Because the gift was due to repentance. before they were even baptized.

And where does John 3:5 say born of flesh?

John 3:5-6New King James Version (NKJV)

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


It is quite simple. Christ spoke of two births here. Not three. And he continued the idea, he did not change subject.



Water and spirit



then he explained what he meant



flesh and spirit.


flesh = water. spirit = spirit.


If it was baptism. Jesus would have said so in john 3: 15 and 16. He did not. Because he never intended people to interpret water as baptism.



We are born of the flesh by our parents. Out of water in our mothers womb we are born.


we are born of the spirit (born again) out of the work of Christ. OPur faith in his work is what makes us born again.


no baptism mentioned or intended..